Let’s use this thread to discuss the specific details of the new bills signed into law. All we really hear is a one sentence summary (i.e. background checks for ammo purchases) but we could all benefit from knowing the actual details and timelines.

I’m by no means a lawyer and don’t pretend to understand everything in the bills. I did, however, do my best to read and interpret them as well as try to cross-reference the sections of existing law they amend (not all, but tried to hit the most relevant ones).

I welcome any corrections, insights, and information that provides historical context. I’m here to learn. I’ll incorporate corrections into my OP to keep it up to date. I’ve only been in CA two years so have to admit I’m still trying to understand existing laws, never mind new ones.

I’ll leave out particular sections pertaining to gun/ammo dealers and keep it focused on how they apply to individuals. Pretty much everything includes exclusions for LEO, gunsmiths, collectors, museums, etc, so I’ll leave those out as well.

Note: It’s important to understand the distinction:
Infraction – is not a criminal charge and only punishable with fines.
Misdemeanor – is considered a criminal charge and punishable by up to a year in jail and up to $1,000 fine.

AB 1695 – False reporting of lost/stolen firearms.

Effective date 1/1/17

Section 1 amends Section 148.5 of the Penal Code. It makes filing a false report of lost/stolen firearms a misdemeanor.

Section 2 was contingent on the passing of AB 1176 which was VETOED. They both had to pass for this section to become law. It would have barred anyone guilty of filing a false report of a lost/stolen firearm from owning a gun for 10 years. Violation of this section was punishable by up to a year in a county jail and $1,000 fine. It no longer applies.

AB 1659

AB 1511 – Background checks for loaning firearms

Effective 1/1/17

Amends Section 27880 of the Penal Code. Existing law allows guns to be loaned between two persons who personally know each other for up to 30 days.

The bill is amended to only allow firearms to be loaned to the following individuals without a background check:
- Spouse
- Registered domestic partner
- Parent
- Child
- Sibling
- Grandparent
- Grandchild

The person borrowing the gun is required to have a Firearms Safety Certificate.

Loans must still be less than 30 days and be “infrequent” as defined in Section 16730

Section 16730 defines “infrequent” as:
1) For handguns, less than six transactions per calendar year
2) For firearms other than handguns, occasional and without regularity.

AB 1511

SB 1446 – Large capacity magazines

Effective 7/1/17

Amends Section 32310 of the Penal Code to ban all high capacity magazines regardless of the date the magazine was acquired. Possession is only considered an infraction.

Owners have until July 1, 2017 to do one of the following:
  1) Remove it from the state
  2) Sell to a FFL
  3) Destroy it
  4) Surrender to LEO for destruction

Fines for infractions:
  1) $100 fine – first offense
  2) $250 fine – second offense
  3) $500 fine – third and subsequent offenses

SB 1446

AB 1135 and SB 880 – Bans bullet buttons

Effective 1/1/18

Amends Section 30515 of the Penal Code to include the following item in the list of features that classify a rifle as an assault weapon:



Exempts competition pistols approved by the IOC and USA Shooting.

Mandates “assault weapons” legally owned from 1/1/01 through 12/31/16 be registered with DOJ by 1/1/18.

Registration will be submitted electronically online. Current law mandates a $20 per person fee to register assault weapons but under this law they’ll charge a $15 fee per person to register electronically.

Registrations will include a description of the firearm that identifies it uniquely, including all identification marks, the date it was acquired, name and address of person/business from which it was acquired, and registrant’s full name, address, phone number, DOB, sex, height, weight, hair color, and CA DL number.

What about 80% firearms? Will this require us to add serial numbers?

Violations shall be punished as a felony or for a period not to exceed one year in county jail.

AB 1135

SB 880

Now we get to SB 1235 concerning background checks for ammo purchases. It’s tied to the passage of “The Safety for All Act of 2016” which is on the November ballot.

If "The Safety for All Act" fails, every provision of this bill stands. If The Safety for All Act passes, this bill automatically changes a major provision of the Act then negates the rest of this bill.

SB 1235 – Background checks for ammunition purchases

Timeline:
Ammunition Vendors must be licensed to sell ammo by 1/1/18
Background checks for ammo purchases begin 7/1/19

This bill amends a host of existing Penal Code sections so not going to list them all.

This bill amends a section of "The Safety for All Act", which is on the November ballot, by removing the requirement for individuals purchasing ammunition to obtain an “ammunition purchase authorization”. The authorization would cost $50 for four years. This bill replaces the “ammo purchase authorization” with a $1 per transaction fee.

It also mandates that ammo can only be sold to the following:
1) A person whose information is listed in the Automated Firearms System
2) A person with a current certificate of eligibility (ammo seller)
3) A person who purchases ammo in the same transaction as a firearms purchase

If "The Safety for All Act" passes, the rest of the bill is negated (though most of it is mirrored in the Act), but includes the following:

Beginning 7/1/19 ammunition vendors are required to electronically upload info about ammo purchases to the Ammunition Purchase Records File.

Knowingly selling ammo to a prohibited person, or knowingly letting them conduct a “straw purchase” of ammo punishable by up to one year in county jail and $1,000 fine.

All background checks for ammo purchases are to be conducted electronically at time of purchase and only incur a $1 fee (may be increased later)

Approval process is as follows:
1) Department cross-references the purchaser’s name, DOB, address, and DL to the Automated Firearms system.
2) If no match, Deny. If a match is found, then:
3) Cross reference purchaser’s info to the Prohibited Armed Persons file.
4) If person is not prohibited, sale is approved

A process is to be developed for a single transaction for the equivalent cost of a DROS fee (not sure who this would apply to. Maybe out-of-staters needing to make a single purchase?)

Prohibited persons cannot handle ammo under any circumstances.

No ammo can be accessible to customers without vendor assistance. This only applies to handgun ammo now (but Bass Pro shops seems to be exempted for some reason).

Ammo can still be sold at gun shows.

All ammo transfers must be conducted face-to-face through a licensed vendor (i.e. selling ammo to a friend). The vendor handling the transfer can only charge the buyer $10 to handle the transfer.

It’s not required to go through a vendor if selling 50 rounds or less to immediate family members or between licensed hunters.

Licensed vendors are required to process internet orders. The ammo must be shipped to the licensed vendor, the vendor can’t charge more than $10 to process the transfer, and the vendor is not required to store the ammo more than 30 days.

California residents can’t bring ammo into the state without first delivering it to a licensed vendor.

You are exempt from delivering out of state ammo to a vendor if you weren’t a resident when the ammo was acquired. In other words, if you move to California with ammo purchased before the move, you’re not required to have it processed or undergo the background check.

The state will store ammo purchase records for a period of two years.

SB 1235

OK, since SB 1235 is tied to The Safety for All Act of 2016, let’s take a look at that as well. This will be on the November ballot.

It looks like it’s written by Bloomberg himself with all the emotional anti-gun buzzwords. “Gun violence destroys lives”, the odd admission “Guns are commonly used by criminals”, “Gun violence causes economic burdens” like that’s somehow a legitimate excuse to eliminate Constitutional Rights, “Reasonable common-sense gun laws”, and “Loopholes” to include stating “Yet California law only requires background checks for people who purchase firearms, not for people who purchase ammunition. We should close that loophole.”.

There’s also “military style large-capacity ammunition magazines” (where can I get “civilian style” magazines?) and “No one except trained law enforcement should be able to possess these dangerous magazines”.

It also complains that California doesn’t do background checks in other states. “Although California conducts background checks on gun buyers who live in California, we have to rely on other states and the FBI to conduct background checks on gun buyers who live elsewhere”. It sounds like De Leon is accusing other states of not conducting background checks and suggesting the FBI is incompetent at this task.

Anyway, here’s a brief synopsis of what’s in it. It’s not written with the same level of detail as the ABs and SBs. The whole thing constitutes a “loophole”, so to speak, to bypass Brown’s vetoes:

Safety for All Act of 2016

Requires anyone 18 or older to apply for an “Ammunition Purchase Authorization” to purchase ammo. The cost is $50 for four years. This is negated by the passage of SB 1235 which replaces it with a $1 fee per transaction to purchase ammo.

Beginning 1/1/17, mandatory reporting of lost/stolen firearms within five days. Mandatory reporting if firearm is recovered. Antiques exempted.  

Violations for not reporting loss/theft of a firearm include:
1) First offense is an infraction with $100 fine
2) Second offense is an infraction with $1,000 fine
3) Third and subsequent offenses are misdemeanors punishable by six months in county jail and $1,000 fine.

Making false claims of loss/theft of a firearm are infractions with the following penalties:
1) First offense $250 fine
2) Second and subsequent offenses $1,000 fine.
(This is negated by AB 1695 which makes it a misdemeanor)

CA DOJ shall participate in NICS, submitting information on prohibited persons (I thought they already did? Is this somehow optional?)

Possession of large capacity magazines is banned as of 7/1/17, punishable as both a misdemeanor and an infraction but doesn’t specify how that is to be applied.
1) Infraction with $100 fine per magazine
2) Misdemeanor punishable by one year in county jail and $100 fine per magazine.

Owners have until July 1, 2017 to do one of the following:
1) Remove it from the state
2) Sell to a FFL
3) Destroy it
4) Surrender to LEO for destruction

Ammunition vendors must be licensed by 1/1/18

Background checks for ammo begin 7/1/19. Vendors are required to electronically upload info about ammo purchases to the Ammunition Purchase Records File.

Knowingly selling ammo to a prohibited person, or knowingly letting them conduct a “straw purchase” of ammo punishable by up to one year in county jail and $1,000 fine.

All ammo transfers must be conducted face-to-face through a licensed vendor (i.e. selling ammo to a friend). Fee charged will be set by DOJ at a future date.

Licensed vendors are required to process internet orders. Fee charged will be set by DOJ at a future date.

California residents can’t bring ammo into the state without first delivering it to a licensed vendor. Violations are an infraction for first offense, and either an infraction or misdemeanor for second and subsequent offenses.

Ammunition can be acquired from a spouse, domestic partner, or immediate family member without going through a licensed vendor.

Ammo can still be sold at gun shows.

No ammo can be accessible to customers without vendor assistance. This only applies to handgun ammo now.

Defines a detailed process for newly prohibited persons to surrender firearms to LEO.
Fine for not complying – Infraction with $100 fine.

Safety for All Act

My head is spinning at this point so feel free to let me know if I left out anything important.

I foresee truckloads of ammo coming into the State before the laws take affect.

This reads like an amnesty provision (or a trap)-

"AB 1135 and SB 880 – Bans bullet buttons

Mandates “assault weapons” legally owned from 1/1/01 through 12/31/16 be registered with DOJ by 1/1/18."

It's written that way to specifically avoid providing any type of amnesty.

During the last mandatory registration period, all assault weapons had to be registered by January 1, 2001. Penalties for failing to register by that date include fines and up to a year in jail.

The new bill exempts anybody who acquired an assault weapon after 1/1/01 from those penalties (only fair considering they weren't considered assault weapons), instead setting new deadlines to register them. In doing so, they intentionally excluded any guns that weren't registered the last time from being registered now. Those gun owners still face up to a year in jail.

I get a kick out of how they word it..."lawfully possessed an assault weapon prior to the date it was defined an assault weapon". There's some serious double-speak in there. "You lawfully possessed something that didn't really exist"

I hope so, but I'm not so sure anybody will listen.

Newsom's excited to get his crap on the ballot because he knows everybody will vote for it simply because it's name. The number of people who know what's in "The Safety for All Act" will be minuscule and he's counting on it.

Probably a dumb question here, but I'm confused as hell. Does this mean I must register my S&W MP-15 that has a bullet button because it is now considered an assault weapon?

Also, I have some 30-round PMAGs that are not assembled. I bought them before it became illegal to import part kits. Must I get rid of these or are they fine because they're technically just parts?

So...once I register my bullet button equipped AR pattern rifle...I can take the bullet button off, and put the regular mag release back on.  Yes?

SB 1446 – Large capacity magazines





No mention of owning magazine parts as being illegal. A line should be added allowing for disassembling magazines to be used as parts. Does this sound correct?



Thanks for doing this, these laws are again poorly defined.



 

I have to get on a conference call so will check later this afternoon. There are references to manufacturing, including assembling from parts, but I'll have to check again to see what the context is.

ETA: It appears that will be illegal. It's worded to pertain to "large capacity magazines" but parts are mostly interchangeable with 10 rounders so not sure how they'd prove it. I brought mine from out of state so have a magblock for every magazine. I'm not suggesting anything illegal so if I were you I'd install magblocks. If you disassemble them, have magblocks in the box with your parts so you can say you have parts for 10 rounders. Not sure how the courts would handle that, so I'd recommend just installing magblocks and popping in a rivet.

It kinda looks that way.

Buy magblocks and turn them into 10 round magazines.

magazineblocks.com

ETA: I'll check the wording later this afternoon.

I still see parts as being fine. My intent is to build 10 rd mags as I see fit.  They must show intent towards the manufacture of magazines larger than 10 rds.



I'm also not manufacturing/assembling what I already own, for which I am disassembling magazines, so a best $100 infraction for having these parts



 

Yep. I agree with you. I was just looking at worst case scenario.

I'm speaking hypothetically. It's kind of like the guy who got arrested because he had both an AR pistol in his trunk along with a collapsible stock for his rifle. Police popped the collapsible stock on his pistol and arrested him. I'm looking at a box of parts along the lines of...."he had all the parts to build high-capacity magazines so was about to manufacture" type of thing.

None of the Deputies I know care about magazines. I suspect that won't change unless somebody gets caught up in something else and they're looking to stack charges.

ETA: I just realized I mentioned "how it would be handled by the courts" in my earlier post then realized it's just an infraction. No court involvement, correct? They just hand you a ticket?

I'm wondering what everybody thinks about the wording of AB 1135/SB 880 in regards to 80% lowers. I hope it's not a way to force us to apply for serial numbers. Hopefully they don't mandate the whole name, address, and serial number thing and just accept a logo etched into the receiver or homemade serial number. It'll suck having to get receivers etched and refinished if they're already completed.

If we can use our own serial numbers than I have a few choice ones I will be adding to them.

I think I remember seeing that serial numbers must end with a number, but can't remember. You could always go featureless and not register your completed home builds.

This is a great question.

Unless I missed something important in the bill I do believe you are correct. It'll meet the new definition of an assault weapon. There's nothing that says you can't.



ETA: Added spaces to separate rifles from pistols and shotguns.